Replies

This is better, 5 is in my opinion still too much, I'd have suggested 2 or 3 at a push - this is in order to:i) Give the photographer some exposure, rather than uploading then being pushed to obscurity after a few hours to page 2 etc.

ii) It gives the viewer opportunity to admire or critique rather than returning to the site at the end of the day and missing out on photographs relegated to page 2 or 3 etc.

iii) The photographer can stop using this as personal storage and then concentrate on his best work to be showcased without going nuts with uploads.

iv) 5 is simply too much, why would anyone want to post 5 in a row anyway? It's silly, as the work is swallowed up and each individual photo cannot be appreciated or viewed as much as it deserves. I've been guilty of this and have learnt from my mistakes and i am sure others may feel the same.

I mean one can be diplomatic and say "yeah, 5 is fair enough", but I'm being brutally honest and undiplomatic and saying 5 is still too much.

This is my opinion and I'm merely trying to convince the majority who have agreed on 5 to lower the limit.

People can use Flickr and such to showcase their complete work, and this should be reserved for their BEST work and not loads of snaps.

I also think uploads should be moderated and any sub standard stuff not allowed to be uploaded.

It's clear where this vote is going. I have made the necessary adjustments so that 5 is the limit. On occasions when something special is needed and an increase is required for an individual I can accommodate as well.

I agree that too many "weak" pics have been posted, and that some simply dump their pics the way they would on their own Flick'r accounts. Except it is not "their" account in quite the same way. So I voter for "5" as a limit. But I wonder if a limit that increases with time wouldn't be a good idea. Because there are times when I come back from a long trip with, litterally, dozens of pictures worth posting. Then managing 5 a day can be tedious, especially if loading on multiple JT sites.

I agree that five per day is a good limit. In fact, I believe it would help the photographer to be more selective in the photos posted. There's nothing worse than when someone buys a new lens and gets carried away with posting 10–15 variations of the same photo on the forum.

I'll take quality over quantity any day. I don't see any problem with 5 per day. We have so many talented photographers here that don't necessarily post a lot of photos on a given week. I hate to see them be overshadowed by photo floods of lesser quality that bury those gems in the mix. Flickr and many other sites are great places for such volume, no need to replicate that environment here.

Yeah, 5 is a good daily max and would make you think a lot more on what you did place on show...I am still more impressed by one person's wonder shot than a plethora of not quite as spectacular picsI wonder, if this was still in the film era, how many would post even thatGood to be selective, otherwise it's just another ho-hum thingMartin

I agree with yurlylux when he says that the overall quality of the photos being posted has declined lately, and I think a more stringent limit might encourage us to be more selective about the images we're uploading. Many of the images I've seen lately look like they are test shots for a new lens or camera, not images that anyone should be proud to display. These images aren't contributing to the overall quality of the site, or to the enjoyment/education that we all hope to experience when we spend time looking through the galleries. I think a weekly limit of 20'ish would be the best way to go. It's not so restrictive that we're likely to miss out on good photos, but it's restrictive enough that we will all be more selective about the photos we choose to post.

5 is good enough, but maybe once a month a user could upload 10 in one day, they should have that option just incase they had an awesome shoot and want to share a bunch at one time. It would be like some kind of coupon that is digitally issued, though I'm not a programmer I don't know how difficult it would be to implement something like that.......

Having a limit is a good idea. I personally would not mind say 5 images per day, but as cyra mentioned, it could be cumbersome for some people, so a weekly limit might generally work out better (something in the 20 to 25 per week would be reasonable). This site is a terrific resource because the quality of images posted by skilled and talented photographer is so high. I use this site a lot to look at images and see what makes them work - it is not only rewarding to look at the images, but also to learn from them. That said, I too have recently noticed the large number of very similar images being posted and reducing that repetitive type of posting would be helpful.

I believe that upto five pictures per day is sufficient.Sites like this have also a didactic purpose are not just blogs. They are virtual photo exhibitions, in a way.Therefore the limited number per day will give an advantage to quality over quantity.Dimitris V. GeorgopoulosAthens, Greece

I think that the limit of the daily allowance is a good idea. Recently, the quality of the site was down - many duplicate files and photo only suitable for family albums, not interest. We should all be interested in raising the level of the customers, otherwise it will turn into a provincial site. You could reduce the daily rate of up to 3 photos.

A bigger limit seems to encourage posting photos that are nearly identical, as if they were from a contact sheet from the old days. Why that is, I'm not sure, but it happens. It's not as bad here as it was a few months ago, thankfully. We really don't need five slightly--and I mean slightly-- different views of the same mountain, the same fence row, the same lake, the same flower.... A limit encourages some photographers to make a decision to use what they feel is the best version--the best single image-- from a series of almost identical shots, instead of posting the whole friggin' series. They should have done that in the first place, but apparently they need guidance.

a limit is good so the site doesn't get flooded. But sometimes one has a few to upload at once, then a small limit is cumbersome. Maybe limit of 20 per weak would maybe more practical than 3 a day. I 'd prefer a larger limit though.